Europa Universalis 4 Wiki talk:Work needed

From Europa Universalis 4 Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I was thinking for the time being we could put the work needed link on the side of the screen (maybe underneath Random Page)

All the wikis used to have that. It barely ever got clicked. ~ Meneth (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2013 (CEST)

Organised plan of work[edit]

I've been dropping a few things on here in what has been a semi random fashion. I think however we need to come up with a more organised plan. We have a patch arriving in a couple of weeks and we'll have another 200 pages needing to be updated. I'm going to concentrate on the content we already have, without dealing with the stuff we need.

  1. We need to version all uploaded media
  2. We have ~100 files which are uploaded, unused and probably out of date, we may want to delete these
  3. Its probably worth checking every page already uploaded for templates we need to add, I'm thinking mainly computer generated but cleanup and expand are also possible

Before we agree to a plan, we should have an idea of anything I've missed here. Dauth (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (CEST)

Since the patch is mostly about tweaks and bugfixing, there probably won't be much stuff we need, so that simplifies things.
The points you bring up are good.
Can't immediately think of anything more. ~ Meneth (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2015 (CEST)
I'm focuing mainly on the active admins (we can delete pages) but anyone can comment, Lillebror do you have anything to add to the list? If not I'll try to break it down into doable chunks, probably a subpage of here for us to use. Dauth (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2015 (CEST)
Versioning of all media - I don't think we have to versioning all media. All the stuff (icons, flags) from Paradox doesn't need a versioning. The map does not change with each patch thus the validity is easy to check. The same might also be valid for interface screenshots.
Deletion of unused files - I wouldn't remove files that have been used by older versions of pages.
Amboxes - Yes, perhaps we should do this systematic. I add the expand tag everytime I find something missing. Cleanup - search for “you” and tag all pages. Computer generated - tag all pages in the categories events, decisions & missions that doesn't use one of the infoboxes.
– Lillebror (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2015 (CEST)
We don't need to version flags and the like, yes. Versioning all the maps is a good idea though since those get outdated on a rate comparable to actual content pages.
Maybe screenshots too, but those are usually no big deal if they show a slightly outdated UI. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2015 (CEST)
Quick and dirty page set up Europa_Universalis_4_Wiki:Work_needed/Organised_Approach hack it about if needed and we can start soon. Dauth (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2015 (CEST)


Is it possible on this wiki to have an automatic list of articles without assessment? Or perhaps it would be simpler to have a list of articles without discussion. Puchacz (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2015 (CEST)

Not sure there's any simple way to do that. ~ Meneth (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2015 (CEST)
Ok, I've made list using MS Excel technology. Here are pages without talk, extracted from there:
[List moved further down ~ Meneth (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2015 (CEST)]
Useful list, I've multicolumned for ease of viewing the discussion. We should go through these and asses them. For all the *events or *missions *decision pages they are lists and anyone can put that assessment in, for the other pages its down to the moderators. Shouldn't take us too long. Dauth (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2015 (CEST)
I'd do it now if I were at home. I'm not though.
I'll do whatever is left when I get home this afternoon. ~ Meneth (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2015 (CEST)
Done all events, except Protestant events, since it had once list assesment, but was deleteed by Meneth. Puchacz (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2015 (CEST)
Patches done, done Protestant events too since it did need restoring. Dauth (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2015 (CEST)


I suggest merging:

  1. All region specific colonial nation decision into Colonial nations decisions.
  2. Art of War Trade Goods events with Trade Goods events.
  3. Protestant events, Reformation events, The Temple City of Cholula, The Oracle of Pachacamac and perhaps some other unsorted religious events into one list, or into related religion events lists. Puchacz (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2015 (CEST)
I agree with the first as long as we link to it from the relevant national articles and also from the Colonial nation page.
AoW and normal trade goods seems reasonable to me, go ahead.
The religious events are a bit messy. Is this the best solution? I'm not sure what the current layout is so suggest we think about it a bit more carefully. Dauth (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2015 (CEST)
I support #1 and #2. Not sure about #3; might be too much info for one page. ~ Meneth (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2015 (CEST)
Done #2, not sure if Art of War trade goods should remain as redirect, or be deleted. File name uses an abbreviation, I doubt anyone will look for it this way. Puchacz (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2015 (CEST)
No reason to get rid of the redirect. It goes where the user wants 100% of the time, and redirects are cheap.
In fact, me making this edit to inform you of that is more expensive than the redirect. ~ Meneth (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2015 (CEST)

Updated list[edit]

Page exists, but no talk (that isn't a redirect):

All assessed Dauth (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2015 (CEST)

Colonial nation decisions (excluded from above):

  • Australia colonial nation decision
  • Chile colonial nation decision
  • Colonial nations decisions
  • Columbia colonial nation decision
  • Haiti colonial nation decision
  • La Plata colonial nation decision
  • Louisiana colonial nation decision
  • Paraguay colonial nation decision
  • Peru colonial nation decision
  • UPCA colonial nation decision
  • Venezuela colonial nation decision
Western decision is non-colonial, assessed and removed. Dauth (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2015 (CEST)

Talk exists, but there isn't a page (that isn't a redirect):

~ Meneth (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2015 (CEST)

Done all talk but no content except those two which need further actions. Dauth (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2015 (CEST)

Here is one more MS Excel made list with all talk pages without assessment:

Will do colonial decisions after weekend. Puchacz (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2015 (CEST)

Patches are list class, if you want to do them then go ahead. We don't have a assessment for the front page, the others need thinking about still. Dauth (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2015 (CEST)
Done with patches, also merged Colonial nations decisions. All were turned into redirects, though not all existed (Quebec, Canada, Mexico and Brasil), also Colombia is named Columbia in the redirects. Puchacz (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2015 (CEST)
Tidied the list up from Pucharz. I think the remaining 3 need some discussion. Dauth (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2015 (CEST)

Ambox descriptions[edit]

I suggest for all amboxes there is some guide as to what is needed. There are 86 expands on this wiki and I'm certain I don't know what all of them are requests for. Between the moderators we should describe what is needed in the expands, and for amboxes which don't have description we should have a list of jobs on the talk pages. Dauth (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2015 (CEST)

A lot of expand tags are on country pages with an introduction of only one sentence, so its obvious what’s missing. – Lillebror (talk)
They should use the add strategy template instead since that's what is missing. Dauth (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2015 (CEST)

Countries lists[edit]

We still don't have any good solutions for how to list the various countries in the regions pages. Currently they're inconsistent and a bit of a mess. Does anyone have a solution? Dauth (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2015 (CEST)


Update this page with incomplete tasks from the contest. Dauth (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2015 (CET)

Transclusion of national ideas[edit]

I don’t like the resulting header (style) of the idea infoboxes on the country pages. See Georgia as example. Second, the naming of the ideas in the game is not country-name (national) ideas. – Lillebror (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2016 (CET)

I agree its not perfect, is there a way it can be fixed using wiki code? I prefer a slightly wrong header to having serious duplication problems. Dauth (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2016 (CET)
One way to fix this would be to stick all the ideas in a template instead, like {{icon}}. This could have internal logic (like group idea) so that separate titles can be used on national ideas and country pages. So it'd look something like this instead {{National idea|Georgia/Imereti}}.
It could have an internal structure similar to {{icon}} to reduce server load. ~ Meneth (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2016 (CET)
At that point we could probably also simply merge it with group idea. Might need to add a parameter to {{idea group}} in order to distinguish group and country ideas, since for the former we'd want the name displayed everywhere, while for the latter only on national ideas. ~ Meneth (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2016 (CET)
If I may interject; this has been bugging me too as I noticed the NI of a nation is often named differently than the nation itself [sometimes slightly, sometimes not]. I thought of two suggestions:
  • Have the name work in the same manner as the display logic. Meaning, in country pages it will display the NI name and in other places the nation flag[s]. However, it requires modifying the template and adding a second name option.
  • Remove the nation flag [entirely or move it to notes] and display NI name instead. Requires only changing the name.
Let me know whichever you are more comfortable with. I can make the minor modifications as I already have the in-game NI names appearing in the region pages. ~ SolSys (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2016 (CET)
Edit: Apparently I type too slow. Having it structured like {{icon}} could be nice editing-wise too, at the moment it responds slowly when making edits [at least from my end]. ~ SolSys (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2016 (CET)
I think it is wrong to add in Great Britain page only English ideas because if Scotland form GBR it keeps is own ideas, so at least we need a note. The difference between ITA and GBR is that Italy has its own ideas and the decision trigger New Traditions & Ambitions event, what in GBR does not happen. Stigni (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2016 (CET)
The GB page has English ideas as that's what they've got in later in-game starts. I'm not sure this is relevant to the discussion at hand though. ~ Meneth (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2016 (CET)
Yes, I know. So of course we add English ideas to GB page, but at least we need a note otherwise it is a misleading information. And if we transclusion from NIs page we don't have this possibility. And with a template and a couple of parameter it can work perfectly. I tried to add a paramater to change the name, as you can see [[User:Stigni/NI]] Stigni (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2016 (CET)
We don't want to have too many parameters, but a single optional one for the name might work. It should be a named parameter rather than one that relies on order, as that means we can more easily add more optional parameters if we should need it in the future. ~ Meneth (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2016 (CET)

(Unindent) I think that we're all happy for the idea groups to be in a template (or two if we keep groups separate). The idea of having a parameter for new ideas & traditions / formed with different ideas is good. What else needs to be decided? Dauth (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2016 (CET)

I just edited my draft [[User:Stigni/NI]], I think is quite good; I set up two parameters name and notes; both optional. Stigni (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2016 (CET)
This comes close to what I imagine. For country pages my thoughts are that the ideas infobox is called by the {{country}} template through an additional parameter with the ingame used name as value. The ingame name of the ideas is also the header of the idea infobox. On the national ideas page the template is used direct with a parameter that changes the header to the country name. – Lillebror (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2016 (CET)

I've created a first draft that includes every single idea group over at {{template|national ideas}}. Let's take the discussion over there. ~ Meneth (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2016 (CET)

My proposal is {{idea group}} subtemplates - one for each unique national idea (like for the group ideas). The name is the country name. Thus it can easily be called by a changed country template without a further parameter. (However, an additional optional parameter is necessary for the countries with group ideas.) For a test replace the country template on the pages of Bremen or Verden with the one from my sandbox (User:Lillebror/sandbox/Country). (On the national ideas page use User:Lillebror/sandbox/IG/Bremen.) – Lillebror (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2016 (CET)
That'd work too, I suppose. The biggest advantage is that we'd avoid a switch table entirely, so it'd probably do better from a performance PoV.
The biggest disadvantage is that it'd be more tedious to update than when split into letter buckets.
Ease of use is generally more important though. How would your proposal benefit ease of use? ~ Meneth (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2016 (CET)
I don't think that my proposal has an updating disadvantage. You have to include the changes of an update. After that the versioning update for ideas with no changes can be done by AWB as well as at the moment with the ideas on each country page. How would you update the ideas of your draft if it's split in 9 part as proposed? Is that easier or faster to manage? – Lillebror (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2016 (CET)
It is easier to verify a bunch of countries NIs if you only have to edit one page per 10-20 countries rather than one for every single country.
Most editors don't have AWB, don't know how to use it, and anyone who joined after the Paradox Account integration can't even use it without asking me for their password. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2016 (CET)
One page is okay, but if it's split? - I wouldn't update the ideas alphabetically, I would start at the top of the ideas file and go through. What about the 44 idea groups, they are also in seperate templates? (Okay 44 isn't 189.) – Lillebror (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2016 (CET)
The idea groups are included in the same template structure as the regular NIs. ~ Meneth (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2016 (CET)